DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: DHTML Dead? Rediculous.

  1. #1
    David Roberts Guest

    DHTML Dead? Rediculous.


    I don't have time for specifics but anyone at this stage of the game claiming
    DHTML is dead for serious applications probably just write and doesn't develop
    much.

    The companies I've worked for and with over the last 5 years have shown me
    otherwise. In fact, in the last year DHTML has become more popular than I've
    ever seen it.

    There are many different ways it's used:
    1. Hand coded
    2. Auto generated via some tool
    3. Auto generated via some library (i.e. JSP Tag libs)
    and I'm sure a lot more...

    Maybe I can reply later when I have more time, I was just stunned to read
    an article which I feel has no place and no merit. I'd like to see some of
    the research that backs the argument. And I'm not just talking about 10 flash
    sites that aren't even application centric.

  2. #2
    Stephen Konig Guest

    Re: DHTML Dead? Rediculous.


    I suspect that candle makers said the same thing right after the light bulb
    was announced. Or to use a more modern example, why do you suppose companies
    like DEC that had their entire business model built on minicomputers went
    out of existence?

    New technologies always make older methods and technologies irrelevant.
    The key is to see and understand that this will occur, and adpat accordingly.
    If .NET provides fundamental benefits way beyond DHTML, it will mean the
    death of DHTML....

    "David Roberts" <technology@davidjroberts.com> wrote:
    >
    >I don't have time for specifics but anyone at this stage of the game claiming
    >DHTML is dead for serious applications probably just write and doesn't develop
    >much.
    >
    >The companies I've worked for and with over the last 5 years have shown

    me
    >otherwise. In fact, in the last year DHTML has become more popular than

    I've
    >ever seen it.
    >
    >There are many different ways it's used:
    >1. Hand coded
    >2. Auto generated via some tool
    >3. Auto generated via some library (i.e. JSP Tag libs)
    >and I'm sure a lot more...
    >
    >Maybe I can reply later when I have more time, I was just stunned to read
    >an article which I feel has no place and no merit. I'd like to see some

    of
    >the research that backs the argument. And I'm not just talking about 10

    flash
    >sites that aren't even application centric.



  3. #3
    Michael Q. Gautier Guest

    Re: DHTML Dead? Rediculous.


    For RAD web development on the front end, probably nothing saves time like
    Visual Studio.NET and ASP.NET or Borland and JSP. However, while a completely
    or largely server-side solution with save time and simplify things for the
    developer, I think that a more responsive front end truly give the user an
    experience matching the desktop.

    Rather than ASP.NET, Windows Forms loaded through the browser/internet could
    be the true death of DHTML and transform the browser from an application
    environment to a more widespread application installer. Of course if at least
    20% of the users keep using Netscape, I don't know. On the other hand, it
    could be situation where once a user gets this type of application (winform)
    delivered this way, they may not go back.


    "Stephen Konig" <skonig@meridium.com> wrote:
    >
    >I suspect that candle makers said the same thing right after the light bulb
    >was announced. Or to use a more modern example, why do you suppose companies
    >like DEC that had their entire business model built on minicomputers went
    >out of existence?
    >
    >New technologies always make older methods and technologies irrelevant.


    >The key is to see and understand that this will occur, and adpat accordingly.
    > If .NET provides fundamental benefits way beyond DHTML, it will mean the
    >death of DHTML....
    >
    >"David Roberts" <technology@davidjroberts.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>I don't have time for specifics but anyone at this stage of the game claiming
    >>DHTML is dead for serious applications probably just write and doesn't

    develop
    >>much.
    >>
    >>The companies I've worked for and with over the last 5 years have shown

    >me
    >>otherwise. In fact, in the last year DHTML has become more popular than

    >I've
    >>ever seen it.
    >>
    >>There are many different ways it's used:
    >>1. Hand coded
    >>2. Auto generated via some tool
    >>3. Auto generated via some library (i.e. JSP Tag libs)
    >>and I'm sure a lot more...
    >>
    >>Maybe I can reply later when I have more time, I was just stunned to read
    >>an article which I feel has no place and no merit. I'd like to see some

    >of
    >>the research that backs the argument. And I'm not just talking about 10

    >flash
    >>sites that aren't even application centric.

    >



  4. #4
    Dave Harney Guest

    Re: DHTML Dead? Rediculous.

    >Windows Forms loaded through the browser/internet could
    > be the true death of DHTML and transform the browser from an application
    > environment to a more widespread application installer.


    For many business applications that need a richer UI than any HTML scheme
    can provide, the idea of Browser-as-WinForm- installer seems like an obvious
    solution. I've been thinking this for a few years now but no really viable
    technology has emerged. ActiveX could do this with a few improvements - but
    saying ActiveX is basically worse than using the F word in church.
    Microsoft Behaviours could do it also, but don't hear much about this either
    (God forbid we offend a NS person). It really amazes me that we have so
    much difficulty providing a decent web UI for simple things like telephone
    numbers, SS#, dates and all kinds of custom edit controls. Ever try to find
    a REAL Combo Box for a web page?

    Dave

    "Michael Q. Gautier" <gautier_michael@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:3c226b73@147.208.176.211...
    >
    > For RAD web development on the front end, probably nothing saves time like
    > Visual Studio.NET and ASP.NET or Borland and JSP. However, while a

    completely
    > or largely server-side solution with save time and simplify things for the
    > developer, I think that a more responsive front end truly give the user an
    > experience matching the desktop.
    >
    > Rather than ASP.NET, Windows Forms loaded through the browser/internet

    could
    > be the true death of DHTML and transform the browser from an application
    > environment to a more widespread application installer. Of course if at

    least
    > 20% of the users keep using Netscape, I don't know. On the other hand, it
    > could be situation where once a user gets this type of application

    (winform)
    > delivered this way, they may not go back.
    >
    >
    > "Stephen Konig" <skonig@meridium.com> wrote:
    > >
    > >I suspect that candle makers said the same thing right after the light

    bulb
    > >was announced. Or to use a more modern example, why do you suppose

    companies
    > >like DEC that had their entire business model built on minicomputers went
    > >out of existence?
    > >
    > >New technologies always make older methods and technologies irrelevant.

    >
    > >The key is to see and understand that this will occur, and adpat

    accordingly.
    > > If .NET provides fundamental benefits way beyond DHTML, it will mean the
    > >death of DHTML....
    > >
    > >"David Roberts" <technology@davidjroberts.com> wrote:
    > >>
    > >>I don't have time for specifics but anyone at this stage of the game

    claiming
    > >>DHTML is dead for serious applications probably just write and doesn't

    > develop
    > >>much.
    > >>
    > >>The companies I've worked for and with over the last 5 years have shown

    > >me
    > >>otherwise. In fact, in the last year DHTML has become more popular than

    > >I've
    > >>ever seen it.
    > >>
    > >>There are many different ways it's used:
    > >>1. Hand coded
    > >>2. Auto generated via some tool
    > >>3. Auto generated via some library (i.e. JSP Tag libs)
    > >>and I'm sure a lot more...
    > >>
    > >>Maybe I can reply later when I have more time, I was just stunned to

    read
    > >>an article which I feel has no place and no merit. I'd like to see some

    > >of
    > >>the research that backs the argument. And I'm not just talking about 10

    > >flash
    > >>sites that aren't even application centric.

    > >

    >




  5. #5
    David Roberts Guest

    Re: DHTML Dead? Rediculous.


    I think you would be suprised was people are doing with DHTML right now. I've
    never seen a true combo box on the web but I don't think it would be to difficult
    to do, and I'm sure someones already done it. The great thing about DHTML
    and newer browers is you can visually control how components can be combined.
    So merging a text box with a drop down is not hard.

    Take a visit to www.dhtmlcentral.com to see some of what people are doing.
    I don't know many really good web programmers who've tried to think to emulate
    winforms on web pages. I've seen a bit of that, but most web programmers
    don't limit there application design to what windows looks like. Even Microsoft
    has ventured away from it with some of there own application, i.e. Outlook.


    In fact a lot of developers I know call this "The VB Mindset". Where everything
    is compared or should be like something from Windows or VB. There's a whole
    other world out there of developers who have learned how to think out of
    the box.

    - David





    "Dave Harney" <daveharney@wi.rr.com> wrote:
    >>Windows Forms loaded through the browser/internet could
    >> be the true death of DHTML and transform the browser from an application
    >> environment to a more widespread application installer.

    >
    >For many business applications that need a richer UI than any HTML scheme
    >can provide, the idea of Browser-as-WinForm- installer seems like an obvious
    >solution. I've been thinking this for a few years now but no really viable
    >technology has emerged. ActiveX could do this with a few improvements -

    but
    >saying ActiveX is basically worse than using the F word in church.
    >Microsoft Behaviours could do it also, but don't hear much about this either
    >(God forbid we offend a NS person). It really amazes me that we have so
    >much difficulty providing a decent web UI for simple things like telephone
    >numbers, SS#, dates and all kinds of custom edit controls. Ever try to

    find
    >a REAL Combo Box for a web page?
    >
    >Dave
    >
    >"Michael Q. Gautier" <gautier_michael@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    >news:3c226b73@147.208.176.211...
    >>
    >> For RAD web development on the front end, probably nothing saves time

    like
    >> Visual Studio.NET and ASP.NET or Borland and JSP. However, while a

    >completely
    >> or largely server-side solution with save time and simplify things for

    the
    >> developer, I think that a more responsive front end truly give the user

    an
    >> experience matching the desktop.
    >>
    >> Rather than ASP.NET, Windows Forms loaded through the browser/internet

    >could
    >> be the true death of DHTML and transform the browser from an application
    >> environment to a more widespread application installer. Of course if at

    >least
    >> 20% of the users keep using Netscape, I don't know. On the other hand,

    it
    >> could be situation where once a user gets this type of application

    >(winform)
    >> delivered this way, they may not go back.
    >>
    >>
    >> "Stephen Konig" <skonig@meridium.com> wrote:
    >> >
    >> >I suspect that candle makers said the same thing right after the light

    >bulb
    >> >was announced. Or to use a more modern example, why do you suppose

    >companies
    >> >like DEC that had their entire business model built on minicomputers

    went
    >> >out of existence?
    >> >
    >> >New technologies always make older methods and technologies irrelevant.

    >>
    >> >The key is to see and understand that this will occur, and adpat

    >accordingly.
    >> > If .NET provides fundamental benefits way beyond DHTML, it will mean

    the
    >> >death of DHTML....
    >> >
    >> >"David Roberts" <technology@davidjroberts.com> wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >>I don't have time for specifics but anyone at this stage of the game

    >claiming
    >> >>DHTML is dead for serious applications probably just write and doesn't

    >> develop
    >> >>much.
    >> >>
    >> >>The companies I've worked for and with over the last 5 years have shown
    >> >me
    >> >>otherwise. In fact, in the last year DHTML has become more popular than
    >> >I've
    >> >>ever seen it.
    >> >>
    >> >>There are many different ways it's used:
    >> >>1. Hand coded
    >> >>2. Auto generated via some tool
    >> >>3. Auto generated via some library (i.e. JSP Tag libs)
    >> >>and I'm sure a lot more...
    >> >>
    >> >>Maybe I can reply later when I have more time, I was just stunned to

    >read
    >> >>an article which I feel has no place and no merit. I'd like to see some
    >> >of
    >> >>the research that backs the argument. And I'm not just talking about

    10
    >> >flash
    >> >>sites that aren't even application centric.
    >> >

    >>

    >
    >



  6. #6
    Rob Teixeira Guest

    Re: DHTML Dead? Rediculous.


    "David Roberts" <technology@davidjroberts.com> wrote:
    >
    >In fact a lot of developers I know call this "The VB Mindset". Where everything
    >is compared or should be like something from Windows or VB. There's a whole
    >other world out there of developers who have learned how to think out of
    >the box.
    >
    >- David


    Honestly, I think it's almost the other way around. DHTML is a content manipulation
    model. It is not a true GUI infrastructure. It is a slow script environment
    where results can't be guaranteed to be accurate, stable, or even supported.
    However, because it's (semi)ubiquitous, people use it as the new replacement
    for what the Java applet once tried to be - a cross-platform, on-demand,
    programmable user interface.

    I'm not disputing the "cleverness" of what can be accomplished with DHTML,
    but compared to a structured GUI infrastructure, it's not much more than
    a bunch of "hacks" with respect to "emulating" a user interface.

    IMO, the "thinking out of the box" needs to be to find a *real* way to have
    a cross-platform, on-demand, programmable user interface infrastructure.
    Faking it on a browser has become the defacto *in the box* thinking.

    Now that I've managed to piss off every DHTML programmer, I'll get back to
    my project

    -Rob

  7. #7
    Dave Harney Guest

    Re: DHTML Dead? Rediculous.

    David,

    Thanks for the pointer to the DHTML site - very interesting - I was not
    aware of this site. It has some useful programming advice.

    I can't reach any conclusions without looking into this deeper, but it still
    seems that it's hard to beat the drag and drop model of winforms to get very
    rich controls and interaction with those controls. Maybe many of these
    clever DHTML scripts can be setup to emulate the winforms programming model.
    If I can drag a DHTML scripted combo box onto a web page and get an easy
    programming model for events - that would be great. My last heavy
    experience with DHTML (over a year ago) was not very positive as it resulted
    in huge amounts of complex scripting that behaved differently between IE &
    NS.

    Right now, I'm glad to see the advances shown on the site you recommeded.
    We need to use whatever is available today to produce the best web based UI
    and have the least deployment and support issues.

    Thanks, Dave

    "David Roberts" <technology@davidjroberts.com> wrote in message
    news:3c234e75@147.208.176.211...
    >
    > I think you would be suprised was people are doing with DHTML right now.

    I've
    > never seen a true combo box on the web but I don't think it would be to

    difficult
    > to do, and I'm sure someones already done it. The great thing about DHTML
    > and newer browers is you can visually control how components can be

    combined.
    > So merging a text box with a drop down is not hard.
    >
    > Take a visit to www.dhtmlcentral.com to see some of what people are doing.
    > I don't know many really good web programmers who've tried to think to

    emulate
    > winforms on web pages. I've seen a bit of that, but most web programmers
    > don't limit there application design to what windows looks like. Even

    Microsoft
    > has ventured away from it with some of there own application, i.e.

    Outlook.
    >
    >
    > In fact a lot of developers I know call this "The VB Mindset". Where

    everything
    > is compared or should be like something from Windows or VB. There's a

    whole
    > other world out there of developers who have learned how to think out of
    > the box.
    >
    > - David
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > "Dave Harney" <daveharney@wi.rr.com> wrote:
    > >>Windows Forms loaded through the browser/internet could
    > >> be the true death of DHTML and transform the browser from an

    application
    > >> environment to a more widespread application installer.

    > >
    > >For many business applications that need a richer UI than any HTML scheme
    > >can provide, the idea of Browser-as-WinForm- installer seems like an

    obvious
    > >solution. I've been thinking this for a few years now but no really

    viable
    > >technology has emerged. ActiveX could do this with a few improvements -

    > but
    > >saying ActiveX is basically worse than using the F word in church.
    > >Microsoft Behaviours could do it also, but don't hear much about this

    either
    > >(God forbid we offend a NS person). It really amazes me that we have so
    > >much difficulty providing a decent web UI for simple things like

    telephone
    > >numbers, SS#, dates and all kinds of custom edit controls. Ever try to

    > find
    > >a REAL Combo Box for a web page?
    > >
    > >Dave
    > >
    > >"Michael Q. Gautier" <gautier_michael@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > >news:3c226b73@147.208.176.211...
    > >>
    > >> For RAD web development on the front end, probably nothing saves time

    > like
    > >> Visual Studio.NET and ASP.NET or Borland and JSP. However, while a

    > >completely
    > >> or largely server-side solution with save time and simplify things for

    > the
    > >> developer, I think that a more responsive front end truly give the user

    > an
    > >> experience matching the desktop.
    > >>
    > >> Rather than ASP.NET, Windows Forms loaded through the browser/internet

    > >could
    > >> be the true death of DHTML and transform the browser from an

    application
    > >> environment to a more widespread application installer. Of course if at

    > >least
    > >> 20% of the users keep using Netscape, I don't know. On the other hand,

    > it
    > >> could be situation where once a user gets this type of application

    > >(winform)
    > >> delivered this way, they may not go back.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> "Stephen Konig" <skonig@meridium.com> wrote:
    > >> >
    > >> >I suspect that candle makers said the same thing right after the light

    > >bulb
    > >> >was announced. Or to use a more modern example, why do you suppose

    > >companies
    > >> >like DEC that had their entire business model built on minicomputers

    > went
    > >> >out of existence?
    > >> >
    > >> >New technologies always make older methods and technologies

    irrelevant.
    > >>
    > >> >The key is to see and understand that this will occur, and adpat

    > >accordingly.
    > >> > If .NET provides fundamental benefits way beyond DHTML, it will mean

    > the
    > >> >death of DHTML....
    > >> >
    > >> >"David Roberts" <technology@davidjroberts.com> wrote:
    > >> >>
    > >> >>I don't have time for specifics but anyone at this stage of the game

    > >claiming
    > >> >>DHTML is dead for serious applications probably just write and

    doesn't
    > >> develop
    > >> >>much.
    > >> >>
    > >> >>The companies I've worked for and with over the last 5 years have

    shown
    > >> >me
    > >> >>otherwise. In fact, in the last year DHTML has become more popular

    than
    > >> >I've
    > >> >>ever seen it.
    > >> >>
    > >> >>There are many different ways it's used:
    > >> >>1. Hand coded
    > >> >>2. Auto generated via some tool
    > >> >>3. Auto generated via some library (i.e. JSP Tag libs)
    > >> >>and I'm sure a lot more...
    > >> >>
    > >> >>Maybe I can reply later when I have more time, I was just stunned to

    > >read
    > >> >>an article which I feel has no place and no merit. I'd like to see

    some
    > >> >of
    > >> >>the research that backs the argument. And I'm not just talking about

    > 10
    > >> >flash
    > >> >>sites that aren't even application centric.
    > >> >
    > >>

    > >
    > >

    >




  8. #8
    David Roberts Guest

    Re: DHTML Dead? Rediculous.


    Rob,

    My last remark was probably missleading. I in no way intended to say DHTML
    was something well constructed or even well conceived.

    I would rather put together a Java Applet any day over DHTML. So let me clarify.

    First Point: I was responding to the notion that web applications should
    look like winforms. I don't agree with this. I don't think webs "should"
    look like anything other than pleasant or maybe even necessary if that's
    your liking and the fact that it's harder in DHTML to make a web page look
    like VB then it is in VB doesn't really matter because not everyone wants
    everything to look like VB.

    Second Point: DHTML sucks. At least that's my opinion. There is a real sense
    of accomplishment in managing to do the simplest of things. Then everyone
    looks at (for instance) some drag and drop DHTML object you built for a web
    page and says, big deal...

    I simply said it was rediculous to say that DHTML IS DEAD. Not that it shouldn't
    be, or if I had the means I wouldn't do it myself. Unfortunatly many of the
    alternatives are:
    1. Only fit into certain enviroments.
    or
    2. Not yet well accepted or supported.
    or
    3. Any other reason that suites you...

    Now, let me say this in DHTMLs defense. In some contracts where browser control
    is a non issue, for instance you only have to target IE 5.5. DHTML is a completely
    viable and strong solution. Client XML plus a decent programming model in
    that situation is good.

    Most government contracts (which there are many) including education, military,
    police, etc... do in fact often allow single browser solutions. This is one
    area where DHTML excels. Especially since Flash and ActiveX are often not
    allowed. (They falls into a more dangerous mobile code policy).

    - David






















    "Rob Teixeira" <RobTeixeira@@msn.com> wrote:
    >
    >"David Roberts" <technology@davidjroberts.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>In fact a lot of developers I know call this "The VB Mindset". Where everything
    >>is compared or should be like something from Windows or VB. There's a whole
    >>other world out there of developers who have learned how to think out of
    >>the box.
    >>
    >>- David

    >
    >Honestly, I think it's almost the other way around. DHTML is a content manipulation
    >model. It is not a true GUI infrastructure. It is a slow script environment
    >where results can't be guaranteed to be accurate, stable, or even supported.
    >However, because it's (semi)ubiquitous, people use it as the new replacement
    >for what the Java applet once tried to be - a cross-platform, on-demand,
    >programmable user interface.
    >
    >I'm not disputing the "cleverness" of what can be accomplished with DHTML,
    >but compared to a structured GUI infrastructure, it's not much more than
    >a bunch of "hacks" with respect to "emulating" a user interface.
    >
    >IMO, the "thinking out of the box" needs to be to find a *real* way to have
    >a cross-platform, on-demand, programmable user interface infrastructure.
    >Faking it on a browser has become the defacto *in the box* thinking.
    >
    >Now that I've managed to piss off every DHTML programmer, I'll get back

    to
    >my project
    >
    >-Rob



  9. #9
    David Roberts Guest

    Re: DHTML Dead? Rediculous.


    Dave,

    Check out my other post. I basically agree with you that DHTML is not the
    best thing out there. I just dissagree with the article saying that it's
    dead when it's very much in use.

    - David

    "Dave Harney" <daveharney@wi.rr.com> wrote:
    >David,
    >
    >Thanks for the pointer to the DHTML site - very interesting - I was not
    >aware of this site. It has some useful programming advice.
    >
    >I can't reach any conclusions without looking into this deeper, but it still
    >seems that it's hard to beat the drag and drop model of winforms to get

    very
    >rich controls and interaction with those controls. Maybe many of these
    >clever DHTML scripts can be setup to emulate the winforms programming model.
    >If I can drag a DHTML scripted combo box onto a web page and get an easy
    >programming model for events - that would be great. My last heavy
    >experience with DHTML (over a year ago) was not very positive as it resulted
    >in huge amounts of complex scripting that behaved differently between IE

    &
    >NS.
    >
    >Right now, I'm glad to see the advances shown on the site you recommeded.
    >We need to use whatever is available today to produce the best web based

    UI
    >and have the least deployment and support issues.
    >
    >Thanks, Dave
    >
    >"David Roberts" <technology@davidjroberts.com> wrote in message
    >news:3c234e75@147.208.176.211...
    >>
    >> I think you would be suprised was people are doing with DHTML right now.

    >I've
    >> never seen a true combo box on the web but I don't think it would be to

    >difficult
    >> to do, and I'm sure someones already done it. The great thing about DHTML
    >> and newer browers is you can visually control how components can be

    >combined.
    >> So merging a text box with a drop down is not hard.
    >>
    >> Take a visit to www.dhtmlcentral.com to see some of what people are doing.
    >> I don't know many really good web programmers who've tried to think to

    >emulate
    >> winforms on web pages. I've seen a bit of that, but most web programmers
    >> don't limit there application design to what windows looks like. Even

    >Microsoft
    >> has ventured away from it with some of there own application, i.e.

    >Outlook.
    >>
    >>
    >> In fact a lot of developers I know call this "The VB Mindset". Where

    >everything
    >> is compared or should be like something from Windows or VB. There's a

    >whole
    >> other world out there of developers who have learned how to think out

    of
    >> the box.
    >>
    >> - David
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> "Dave Harney" <daveharney@wi.rr.com> wrote:
    >> >>Windows Forms loaded through the browser/internet could
    >> >> be the true death of DHTML and transform the browser from an

    >application
    >> >> environment to a more widespread application installer.
    >> >
    >> >For many business applications that need a richer UI than any HTML scheme
    >> >can provide, the idea of Browser-as-WinForm- installer seems like an

    >obvious
    >> >solution. I've been thinking this for a few years now but no really

    >viable
    >> >technology has emerged. ActiveX could do this with a few improvements

    -
    >> but
    >> >saying ActiveX is basically worse than using the F word in church.
    >> >Microsoft Behaviours could do it also, but don't hear much about this

    >either
    >> >(God forbid we offend a NS person). It really amazes me that we have

    so
    >> >much difficulty providing a decent web UI for simple things like

    >telephone
    >> >numbers, SS#, dates and all kinds of custom edit controls. Ever try

    to
    >> find
    >> >a REAL Combo Box for a web page?
    >> >
    >> >Dave
    >> >
    >> >"Michael Q. Gautier" <gautier_michael@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    >> >news:3c226b73@147.208.176.211...
    >> >>
    >> >> For RAD web development on the front end, probably nothing saves time

    >> like
    >> >> Visual Studio.NET and ASP.NET or Borland and JSP. However, while a
    >> >completely
    >> >> or largely server-side solution with save time and simplify things

    for
    >> the
    >> >> developer, I think that a more responsive front end truly give the

    user
    >> an
    >> >> experience matching the desktop.
    >> >>
    >> >> Rather than ASP.NET, Windows Forms loaded through the browser/internet
    >> >could
    >> >> be the true death of DHTML and transform the browser from an

    >application
    >> >> environment to a more widespread application installer. Of course if

    at
    >> >least
    >> >> 20% of the users keep using Netscape, I don't know. On the other hand,

    >> it
    >> >> could be situation where once a user gets this type of application
    >> >(winform)
    >> >> delivered this way, they may not go back.
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >> "Stephen Konig" <skonig@meridium.com> wrote:
    >> >> >
    >> >> >I suspect that candle makers said the same thing right after the light
    >> >bulb
    >> >> >was announced. Or to use a more modern example, why do you suppose
    >> >companies
    >> >> >like DEC that had their entire business model built on minicomputers

    >> went
    >> >> >out of existence?
    >> >> >
    >> >> >New technologies always make older methods and technologies

    >irrelevant.
    >> >>
    >> >> >The key is to see and understand that this will occur, and adpat
    >> >accordingly.
    >> >> > If .NET provides fundamental benefits way beyond DHTML, it will mean

    >> the
    >> >> >death of DHTML....
    >> >> >
    >> >> >"David Roberts" <technology@davidjroberts.com> wrote:
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >>I don't have time for specifics but anyone at this stage of the game
    >> >claiming
    >> >> >>DHTML is dead for serious applications probably just write and

    >doesn't
    >> >> develop
    >> >> >>much.
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >>The companies I've worked for and with over the last 5 years have

    >shown
    >> >> >me
    >> >> >>otherwise. In fact, in the last year DHTML has become more popular

    >than
    >> >> >I've
    >> >> >>ever seen it.
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >>There are many different ways it's used:
    >> >> >>1. Hand coded
    >> >> >>2. Auto generated via some tool
    >> >> >>3. Auto generated via some library (i.e. JSP Tag libs)
    >> >> >>and I'm sure a lot more...
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >>Maybe I can reply later when I have more time, I was just stunned

    to
    >> >read
    >> >> >>an article which I feel has no place and no merit. I'd like to see

    >some
    >> >> >of
    >> >> >>the research that backs the argument. And I'm not just talking about

    >> 10
    >> >> >flash
    >> >> >>sites that aren't even application centric.
    >> >> >
    >> >>
    >> >
    >> >

    >>

    >
    >



  10. #10
    David Roberts Guest

    Re: DHTML Dead? Rediculous.


    Michael,

    Everything you've stated sounds practical. My problem with this article is
    that the author states that DHTML IS dead, not that is should be or it will
    be but that it is.

    I feel that this is a rediculous statement made by someone who probably hasn't
    worked in enviroments with contraints.

    i.e. The government isn't even allowing the use of .Net, yet. In fact, flash
    and activeX are outlawed while Java Applets require special waivers.

    DHTML is typically the easiest to implement in an enviroment with such constraints.
    It may not stay this way but for anyone who thinks DHTML is dead, I say wake
    up...

    It's very ironic that the web page the author writes an article on about
    how DHTML is dead, uses DHTML.

    - David




    "Michael Q. Gautier" <gautier_michael@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >For RAD web development on the front end, probably nothing saves time like
    >Visual Studio.NET and ASP.NET or Borland and JSP. However, while a completely
    >or largely server-side solution with save time and simplify things for the
    >developer, I think that a more responsive front end truly give the user

    an
    >experience matching the desktop.
    >
    >Rather than ASP.NET, Windows Forms loaded through the browser/internet could
    >be the true death of DHTML and transform the browser from an application
    >environment to a more widespread application installer. Of course if at

    least
    >20% of the users keep using Netscape, I don't know. On the other hand, it
    >could be situation where once a user gets this type of application (winform)
    >delivered this way, they may not go back.
    >
    >
    >"Stephen Konig" <skonig@meridium.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>I suspect that candle makers said the same thing right after the light

    bulb
    >>was announced. Or to use a more modern example, why do you suppose companies
    >>like DEC that had their entire business model built on minicomputers went
    >>out of existence?
    >>
    >>New technologies always make older methods and technologies irrelevant.

    >
    >>The key is to see and understand that this will occur, and adpat accordingly.
    >> If .NET provides fundamental benefits way beyond DHTML, it will mean the
    >>death of DHTML....
    >>
    >>"David Roberts" <technology@davidjroberts.com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>I don't have time for specifics but anyone at this stage of the game claiming
    >>>DHTML is dead for serious applications probably just write and doesn't

    >develop
    >>>much.
    >>>
    >>>The companies I've worked for and with over the last 5 years have shown

    >>me
    >>>otherwise. In fact, in the last year DHTML has become more popular than

    >>I've
    >>>ever seen it.
    >>>
    >>>There are many different ways it's used:
    >>>1. Hand coded
    >>>2. Auto generated via some tool
    >>>3. Auto generated via some library (i.e. JSP Tag libs)
    >>>and I'm sure a lot more...
    >>>
    >>>Maybe I can reply later when I have more time, I was just stunned to read
    >>>an article which I feel has no place and no merit. I'd like to see some

    >>of
    >>>the research that backs the argument. And I'm not just talking about 10

    >>flash
    >>>sites that aren't even application centric.

    >>

    >



  11. #11
    Michael Q. Gautier Guest

    Re: DHTML Dead? Rediculous.


    I also agree that DHTML is dead and my never die. In fact, I wish that I could
    do more of my web UIs with DHTML. You was once allowed to do this when I
    worked with eGovernment a few years back, but in the last year, I've be constrained
    to use 99% server-side solutions due to fears over the support for javascript,
    user's turning off javascript, and skillset of the people who would be maintaining
    the system with regard to javascript. If .NET wasn't comming out I probably
    would have started a path towards Java Applets and/or ASP's written in JScript.

    I think the user of a system deserves a quick, responsive, rich UI to do
    their business, but the issues are who is going to develop the rich UI. Good,
    rich UIs take time and that is time taken away from core business logic on
    the server if you are the sole developer.

    I've built javascript function libraries when I did lots of client-side javascript
    in addition to "logic only" in ASP/VB COM so it didn't take me a long time
    to do client side portions. However, no everyone has this and a strong programming
    model for the web client such as you have for the desktop client would change
    UIs more in favor of the user. If the UIs are not right to begin with, at
    least with a strong UI programming model you can change and still keep or
    not break existing rich functionality.




    "David Roberts" <technology@davidjroberts.com> wrote:
    >
    >Michael,
    >
    >Everything you've stated sounds practical. My problem with this article

    is
    >that the author states that DHTML IS dead, not that is should be or it will
    >be but that it is.
    >
    >I feel that this is a rediculous statement made by someone who probably

    hasn't
    >worked in enviroments with contraints.
    >
    >i.e. The government isn't even allowing the use of .Net, yet. In fact, flash
    >and activeX are outlawed while Java Applets require special waivers.
    >
    >DHTML is typically the easiest to implement in an enviroment with such constraints.
    >It may not stay this way but for anyone who thinks DHTML is dead, I say

    wake
    >up...
    >
    >It's very ironic that the web page the author writes an article on about
    >how DHTML is dead, uses DHTML.
    >
    >- David
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >"Michael Q. Gautier" <gautier_michael@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>For RAD web development on the front end, probably nothing saves time like
    >>Visual Studio.NET and ASP.NET or Borland and JSP. However, while a completely
    >>or largely server-side solution with save time and simplify things for

    the
    >>developer, I think that a more responsive front end truly give the user

    >an
    >>experience matching the desktop.
    >>
    >>Rather than ASP.NET, Windows Forms loaded through the browser/internet

    could
    >>be the true death of DHTML and transform the browser from an application
    >>environment to a more widespread application installer. Of course if at

    >least
    >>20% of the users keep using Netscape, I don't know. On the other hand,

    it
    >>could be situation where once a user gets this type of application (winform)
    >>delivered this way, they may not go back.
    >>
    >>
    >>"Stephen Konig" <skonig@meridium.com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>I suspect that candle makers said the same thing right after the light

    >bulb
    >>>was announced. Or to use a more modern example, why do you suppose companies
    >>>like DEC that had their entire business model built on minicomputers went
    >>>out of existence?
    >>>
    >>>New technologies always make older methods and technologies irrelevant.

    >>
    >>>The key is to see and understand that this will occur, and adpat accordingly.
    >>> If .NET provides fundamental benefits way beyond DHTML, it will mean

    the
    >>>death of DHTML....
    >>>
    >>>"David Roberts" <technology@davidjroberts.com> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>I don't have time for specifics but anyone at this stage of the game

    claiming
    >>>>DHTML is dead for serious applications probably just write and doesn't

    >>develop
    >>>>much.
    >>>>
    >>>>The companies I've worked for and with over the last 5 years have shown
    >>>me
    >>>>otherwise. In fact, in the last year DHTML has become more popular than
    >>>I've
    >>>>ever seen it.
    >>>>
    >>>>There are many different ways it's used:
    >>>>1. Hand coded
    >>>>2. Auto generated via some tool
    >>>>3. Auto generated via some library (i.e. JSP Tag libs)
    >>>>and I'm sure a lot more...
    >>>>
    >>>>Maybe I can reply later when I have more time, I was just stunned to

    read
    >>>>an article which I feel has no place and no merit. I'd like to see some
    >>>of
    >>>>the research that backs the argument. And I'm not just talking about

    10
    >>>flash
    >>>>sites that aren't even application centric.
    >>>

    >>

    >



  12. #12
    Mark Hoffman Guest

    Re: DHTML Dead? Rediculous.


    I'm coming in late, but I have to agree with David to the extent that for
    single browser solutions, DHTML is far from dead.

    Most of my work is for corporate clients. So far, all of our clients have
    standardized on IE. That gives us a huge amount of flexibility when developing
    web applications. Things such as IE Behaviors bring a lot to the table when
    designing web based applications. I've been able to do some pretty amazing
    things with IE, Javascript, XML and ASP.

    On the other hand, I shudder to think of trying to develop these type of
    applications with support for Netscape or other browsers in mind. Ugh.
    Since I've been an application developer much longer than I've been a web
    developer, I completely agree with the person who commented that web based
    application development can be somewhat likened to a hack. As proud as I
    am of my Javascript and VBScript classes, they are still hacks when compared
    to what I can do in VB,C++ and now .NET. I still prefer a compiler!


    So, until .NET becomes ubiquitous on the corporate landscape and while there
    is still a demand for web based applications, I see DHTML being alive and
    well. However, once .NET begins to become more common I predict that DHTML
    will begin to die out.


    "David Roberts" <technology@davidjroberts.com> wrote:
    >
    >I don't have time for specifics but anyone at this stage of the game claiming
    >DHTML is dead for serious applications probably just write and doesn't develop
    >much.
    >
    >The companies I've worked for and with over the last 5 years have shown

    me
    >otherwise. In fact, in the last year DHTML has become more popular than

    I've
    >ever seen it.
    >
    >There are many different ways it's used:
    >1. Hand coded
    >2. Auto generated via some tool
    >3. Auto generated via some library (i.e. JSP Tag libs)
    >and I'm sure a lot more...
    >
    >Maybe I can reply later when I have more time, I was just stunned to read
    >an article which I feel has no place and no merit. I'd like to see some

    of
    >the research that backs the argument. And I'm not just talking about 10

    flash
    >sites that aren't even application centric.



  13. #13
    SteveC Guest

    Re: DHTML Dead? Rediculous.


    What you are referring to, I believe is http://www.devx.com/free/hotlinks/20...note121901.asp
    written by A. Russell Jones. I have read his book Mastering ASP 3.0 and
    it is terrific. I didn't take him quite as literal as you did. I see Jones'
    point as trying to be somewhat prophetic and he may or may not be correct
    here. Let's try to lighten up a little.

    "David Roberts" <technology@davidjroberts.com> wrote:
    >
    >I don't have time for specifics but anyone at this stage of the game claiming
    >DHTML is dead for serious applications probably just write and doesn't develop
    >much.
    >
    >The companies I've worked for and with over the last 5 years have shown

    me
    >otherwise. In fact, in the last year DHTML has become more popular than

    I've
    >ever seen it.
    >
    >There are many different ways it's used:
    >1. Hand coded
    >2. Auto generated via some tool
    >3. Auto generated via some library (i.e. JSP Tag libs)
    >and I'm sure a lot more...
    >
    >Maybe I can reply later when I have more time, I was just stunned to read
    >an article which I feel has no place and no merit. I'd like to see some

    of
    >the research that backs the argument. And I'm not just talking about 10

    flash
    >sites that aren't even application centric.



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
HTML5 Development Center
 
 
FAQ
Latest Articles
Java
.NET
XML
Database
Enterprise
Questions? Contact us.
C++
Web Development
Wireless
Latest Tips
Open Source


   Development Centers

   -- Android Development Center
   -- Cloud Development Project Center
   -- HTML5 Development Center
   -- Windows Mobile Development Center